Ask Congress To Make Public Domain Congressional Research Service's Reports Public

from the yes,-please dept

A couple of years ago, we wrote about how the Congressional Research Service's reports were technically public domain, but were often hidden from the public by a Congress, who doesn't want you to see the CRS reports. That's because CRS is known for publishing research that is non-partisan, extremely credible and useful. And, of course, our elected officials in Congress don't want that sort of information out there. They prefer the information that's been spun to their political advantage first. Wikileaks has been able to publish some CRS reports, but a ton of CRS stuff still remains hidden, even though it's technically public domain.

A bunch of organizations are trying to change that. 38 groups have sent a letter to Congress asking them to open up and release CRS research. The full letter is included after the jump, but this is a proposal that really should be supported by the public. Check it out, and if you agree, add your voices to those pushing to finally open up this valuable resource to the public who paid for it.February 25, 2010

We the undersigned organizations concerned with government openness and accountability are writing to urge you to appoint a Director of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) who will work with Congress to provide online free public access to the unclassified, non-confidential, taxpayer-funded reports produced by CRS.

The public needs access to these non-confidential CRS reports in order to discharge their civic duties. American taxpayers spend over $100 million a year to fund the CRS, which generates detailed reports relevant to current political events for lawmakers. But while the reports are non-classified, and play a critical role in our legislative process, they have never been made available in a consistent and official way to members of the public.

Predictably, to fill the public void left by the CRS, several private companies now sell copies of these reports at a price. This means that non-confidential CRS reports are readily available to lobbyists, executives and others who can afford to pay. Meanwhile, the vast majority of people lack the information necessary to even request reports from their Members of Congress.

In 1822, James Madison explained why citizens must have government information: "A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." In the spirit of Madison, we ask you to appoint a Director of CRS who will help advance the goal of online free public access to CRS reports.

Representatives from the undersigned organizations would be happy to meet with you or your staff at any time to discuss this important issue. Please contact Amy Bennett, Program Associate, OpenTheGovernment.org (afuller@openthegovernment.org or 202-332-6736), at your convenience.

Sincerely,

AhEeCOSH
American Association of Law Libraries
American Library Association
American Society of News Editors
Association of Research Libraries
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
CAUS
Center for Democracy and Technology
Center for Media and Democracy
Center for Responsive Politics
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
Defending Dissent Foundation
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
Essential Information
Federation of American Scientists
Free Government Information
Government Accountability Project (GAP)
iSolon.org
Knowledge Ecology International
Liberty Coalition
MapLight.org
National Coalition Against Censorship
National Freedom of Information Coalition
National Security Counselors
No More Guantanamos
OMB Watch
OpenTheGovernment.org
Point of Order
Project On Government Oversight (POGO)
Public Citizen
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
RS&S INTERNATIONAL, LLC
Society of Academic Law Library Directors
Society of Professional Journalists
Special Libraries Association
Sunlight Foundation
University of Missouri Freedom of Information Center
Washington Coalition for Open Government

Reader Comments

Re: defeatism

>> therefore they are permitted to be candid and accurate.

This was the first thought that crossed my mind, but it is not right. You captured it well with the subject line "defeatism" in that "transparency would defeat the point of the research if it stops being candid, but if we don't try we are admitting defeat as well.

The important goal is to push things to the light.

It's one thing to say, OK, they have access to the good stuff, so let's let them keep having that and we will trust them. In software, proprietary companies do this all the time. They ask us to trust them because they know better to make the important decisions. Open source has demonstrated the folly of those ways.

If we decide not to trust them and do risk candidness, then what remains is for them to open up garbage data as the alleged data upon which they base their decisions or to come up with a law to hide the information.

If the do the former, we will have the means to point out to them that the data/analysis/etc is garbage. If they do the latter, we will be able to hold it against them come elections. Either way, we can make a stink of this publicly if we demand first, but if we "trust them", we can't make a stink with any sort of legitimacy or accuracy.

If we aim to level playing fields, despite risks, it will almost surely not happen if we don't have a real attempt at transparency... at knowledge. Knowledge breaks the bonds of slavery.

BTW, in open source software, when the main group screws up too much, people "fork", so we can consider this move towards transparency as a potential precursor to a Constitutional change that will alter the way this nation is to be ruled.